A Sunnite versus a Mu'tazilite
The Sunni Answers blog had an excellent posting yesterday that included the following very telling little dialogue (which I haven't altered, but only reformatted a bit to hopefully make it a bit easier on the eyes):
I have mentioned it elsewhere, but it is useful to recount the debate between Al-Qadi 'Abdul Jabbaar of the Mu'tazilite sect, and the great Imam of the Sunnis of the time, Abu Ishaq Al-Isfaraayini.Count that as our 'aqidah lesson of the day! I've seen Christians, normally of the uneducated Bible-thumping variety, say that Satan, not Almighty God, is the "Creator of evil". When asked, "So you believe that there are two Creators?" they either just agree (seemingly without grasping the theological ramifications of what this implies), try to change the subject (a common tactic amongst missionaries), or get a blank stare on their face (a result that occurs quite often when people talk about subjects that are way out of their league).
When the two met, 'AbdulJabbaar said, “Exalted is Allah, who transcends the obscene.”
(While this is a sound expression, what he meant to say was that Allah does not create evil. This is blasphemous, because Muslims must believe that Allah is the only creator, as it is stated in the Quran that He created everything, and that no one wills anything except by His Will.)
Imam Al-Isfaraayini (418 AH) realized what he had implied and responded, “Exalted is Allah, who nothing happens in His dominion but by His Will.”
The Mu'tazilite then made another attempt and said, “Does our Lord like to be disobeyed?”
Al-Isfaraayini quickly replied, “Could He be disobeyed against His Will?”
Upon that 'Abdul Jabbaar tried again to defeat his adversary and said, “If God denied me guidance, then ruled that I be destroyed for it, has He treated me fairly?”
Al-Isfaraayini calmly answered, “If He denied you something that was yours, then He would have been unfair, but if it was not rightfully yours, then Allah does with His creation what He wills.”
'Abdul Jabbaar fell silent, and could not argue further. After all, Allah is the true owner of all creation.
Deen on...
Labels: Theology - Islamic
posted by @ 12:18 PM
Comment Guidelines
8 comments
8 Comments:
Well, then, you should ask someone who knows Christian theology better. A more knowledgeable Christian would say that God allows (gives permission) to Satan to create evil in the same way that he gave the power to prophets to create miracles as in the case of Jesus.
So, there's no question that all that God does is just. The question is, What does God actually do and allow? One cannot assume that because all is in God's power that he turns people into robots and takes away their will to act independently. Just as He gave Jesus the power to do miracles, He can give all human beings the power to choose good or evil. Whether or not, He does this is something to be determined--not assumed one way or another.
The Christian mystic Jacob Boehme was very clear about the relative utility of evil for God's work. God, the highest Good, limits himself in the world, and because good is limited, evil comes into existence. Both good and evil are relative to the highest Good. The polarity between good and evil propels creation toward the highest Good, which is the Divine.
Similar theories are found in many major spiritual traditions in the world.
To Charles,
When I, as a former Christian, was asking these Bible-thumbers the questions, it wasn't to find out for myself. Rather it was an attempt to show them that their beliefs compromised monotheism. Indeed, one should be leery of any theology that is so subtle, complex or convoluted that it very often leads simple-minded and common people into polytheism or, at a minimum, dualism.
The sophistry that Christian theologians show these days stands in stark contrast to how they were for about the first half of their religion's existence (so far). A example of this is the fact that the embarrassingly crude Classical Theory of Atonement (a.k.a. Ransom Theory), in which God pays the Devil a ransom so that he will release sinners from captivity, was the dominant belief of the church until the 11th century CE. Likewise, Christian art in which the so-called "Divine Persons" of the Trinity are depicted an glaringly anthropomorphic (if not pagan) fashion ([1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9])is enough to cause any right-thinking adherent of Abrahamic monotheism to flee in utter horror...John of Damascus, and all others who opposed iconoclasm, be damned.
In regards to "One cannot assume that..."—well none of "that" was implied in the quote. Anyone with a basic knowledge of Islamic theology should know that it certainly does not deny that human beings have been given free will...wa Allahu 'alim.
Peace,
Abdurrahman R. Squires
Sorry about jumping to a conclusion on "assume." After reading the post to which you linked, I did "assume" because that individual apparently does deny that humans have free will. In fact, citing Abu Hanifah, he states,
"If anyone claimed that the predestination of good and evil is from other than Aļļaah, then he has become a unbeliever in God and his monotheism is invalidated."
So, it's no longer enough to believe in the five pillars of Islam and the six articles of faith, but one must accept certain interpretations of the Quran, as if these interpretations were infallible.
To believe in more than one creator is to contradict the first pillar of faith, as Abu Hanifah hinted to when he said in Al-Waşiyyah: "If anyone claimed that the predestination of good and evil is from other than Aļļaah, then he has become a unbeliever in God and his monotheism is invalidated."
Yes, if one believes in more than one Creator, then he is no longer a monotheist.
The point that I was making is that many people/scholars assume that interpretations of particular verses other than theirs requires a belief in more than one creator. But that assumption is simply not valid for several reasons.
One reason is that they assume they understand how God's predestination works in all its particulars. Another is that they assume that if God predestines evil, he also creates it.
All of these assumptions are based on fallible human interpretation of the Quran. If someone states that people have a real choice and real free will as opposed to what seems to be claimed by most scholars, and that same person asserts that there is only one Creator, then no one has the right to say that that person has left monotheism.
Actually, the same accusation has been leveled at Sunni orthodoxy as regards the nature of Allah's word. Some claim that believing that it is eternal means that those believers believe in two Creators.
Or you might look at orthodoxy's acceptance of Allah's hand as being a literal hand (instead of a metaphor) but it's not a hand like our hand.
These are paradoxes that go beyond human understanding, and I mention them not for argument but as examples that there are aspects of the Qur'an that go beyond our understanding. Similarly, just as there are many verses stating that Allah predestines everything, there are others (such as 2:26-27) that state that human beings have free will. If one can accept that Allah's hand exists but isn't like ours, then they should be able to accept that Allah's predestination exists, but how it works may not be according to how we think it works.
The problem isn't so much that one firmly believes how predestination or free will works. The problem is (1) acting as if one's interpretation of the Qur'an is infallible and (2) claiming that others who disagree with that interpretation are polytheists despite the fact that the people they are accusing affirm that there is only one Creator.
Charles,
It seems you need to read up on your Islamic theology since you seem to believe that the quote which you posted from Abu Hanifah implies that he did not believe that humans have free will...although he certainly did. However, maybe this is the fault of the translation (i.e. the word "predestination" in lieu of the Arabic qadr). The so-called theological "problem" of reconciling God's predestination with the free will that He has bestowed upon humans is an interesting one, and one that has been seen as a theological challenge by Judaism, Christianity and Islam. Muslims, namely Imam Abul-Hassan al-Ash'ari, were able to come up with a more satisfactory solution to this problem. Indeed, the doctrine of kasb (acquisition) made a happy mean between predestination and free-will possible, while avoiding the error of having more than one creator. This was very much in tune with the Qur'anic explanation of things; presenting Almighty God as He really is...whether one likes it or not.
As far as "One reason is that they assume they understand how God's predestination works in all its particulars"...could you cite some examples? I've never heard a mainstream Sunni scholar claim this. Actually, the mainstream advice is to not delve into these subjects too deeply, since on a certain level they're beyond human comprehension and can lead to confusion.
"All of these assumptions are based on fallible human interpretation of the Quran." Sunni Muslims, in contrast to the Shi'a, don't believe that any one individual scholar is infallible, but we believe that the collective body of scholars would never agree upon an error (which includes erroneous interpretations of the Qur'an as well as understandings of God's attributes). Based on this, we accept the fact that both correct and incorrect interpretations exist, thus avoiding the error of wanting to brush it all aside since it's all just "fallible human interpretation".
"Actually, the same accusation has been leveled at Sunni orthodoxy as regards the nature of Allah's word. Some claim that believing that it is eternal means that those believers believe in two Creators"
Well all kinds of accusations have been levied against Sunni theology, but that doesn't mean they hold up to scrutiny. Indeed the Mu'tazilah attempts to undermine Sunni theology largely dealt with a straw-man Sunni theology, not the real deal. Their theology was typical of those who have an agenda to push forward, which is why they have to resort to forced interpretations of the Qur'an and hadith (which are denied when they can't explain them away) in order to keep the house of cards standing. Today, so many Westerners, "experts" on Islam and otherwise, are saying that Islam needs to be reformed and that going back to the rationalist theology of the Mu'tazilah might be the way to do it. I always wonder if they realize that the Twelver Shi'a are essentially Mu'tazilah in their theological approach. If they have any questions, they ought to give Muqtada al-Sadr a call.
"Or you might look at orthodoxy's acceptance of Allah's hand as being a literal hand (instead of a metaphor) but it's not a hand like our hand". Ha! Or should I say, "Aghghgh!"? What you've just cited is the neo-Salafi view, who merely claim to be "orthodox"...and just because they claim it don't make it so! You need to read the translation of The Attributes of God: Ibn al-Jawzi's Daf' Shubah al-Tashbih bi-Akaff al-Tanzih, since it should clarify these points for you. The Sunni belief is to accept the attribute "without asking 'How?'"...and saying "It's literal, but just not a hand like our hand" nullifies this. However, in the face of growing anthropomorphic tendencies and a desire to avoid confusion amongst the common folk ('awam), some Sunni theologians allowed for metaphorical interpretations based on valid early interpretations of the Qur'an and the Arabic language.
"These are paradoxes that go beyond human understanding" Amen! Ultimately, theology (kalam) isn't going to get one closer to Almighty God or lead to surety of faith. On a certainly level, as a tool, it can be used to avoid errors but won't take one much beyond that. The life of Imam al-Ghazali is proof positive of this.
"Similarly, just as there are many verses stating that Allah predestines everything, there are others (such as 2:26-27) that state that human beings have free will." Indeed, there are verses that are apparently in contradiction, but upon further detailed investigation the alleged contradiction is not real but only describing a subtle point. Often these points are somewhat paradoxical issues that are beyond human understanding. I'm not sure that any theology can dot all of its i's and cross all of its t's...but the respectable ones at least avoid crossing their i's and dotting their t's.
"If one can accept that Allah's hand exists..." Well we don't believe that He as a physical limb, since that's disbelief (kufr). However, one is certainly allowed to simply leave the meaning to Almighty God, accepting it in the heart as absolutely true, and not go beyond that...thus neither a literal nor a metaphorical meaning would be needed.
"The problem is (1) acting as if one's interpretation of the Qur'an is infallible" Well we weren't on the subject of infallibility, since even within Ash'ari kalam there's some wiggle room. However, I think this statement mischaracterizes what I stated in the beginning of this email, which was about half-baked theologies (and there is such a thing!) that necessitate believing in two creators. The main point there is that simple-minded Bible-thumpers who haven't even spent a minute reflecting on the bigger issues of theology, and often have even less knowledge of the textual history of the Bible, shouldn't be going around trying to spread their faulty ideas.
"(2) claiming that others who disagree with that interpretation are polytheists despite the fact that the people they are accusing affirm that there is only one Creator" Well that's interesting. There might be a slight difference in formally labeling someone a polytheist versus logically and scripturally demonstrating that the theology which they adhere to amounts to de facto polytheism. The fact that they "affirm that there is only one Creator" doesn't count for much, even for many Christians. That's because historically even Christians used to accuse some heretical sects, back in the days when most Christians believed that there was such a thing, of being "tritheists"...this in spite of the fact that they would have answered "One!" if asked how many God(s) are there. The reason for this is that their theology, at least in the minds of some Trinitarian Christians, was so crude and poorly formulated that it necessitated the belief in three gods rather than one. Thus the these Trinitarians applied the label of "tritheist" to other Christians whose theology was even more polytheistic than their own...so this isn't something that's unique to Muslims. No doubt, however, both Jews and Muslims have considered Christians, Hindus and others who pay lip-service to "One God" to be de facto polytheists in spite of such claims. Yes, there are limits to how far someone can go without going out of bounds. On that note, I'd recommend On the Boundaries of Theological Tolerance in Islam: Abu Hamid al Ghazali's Faysal al Tafriqa...wa Allahu 'alim.
Thanks for the lengthy response. I think part of the disagreement is due to a little bit of my referring to the other post you cited and not being clear about that.
You made a good point about Christians affirming they believe in one God, but really don't. So, yes, "there are limits to how far someone can go without going out of bounds." My point with respect to Abu Hanifah's statement above was that someone could believe that God did not predestine evil and still believe in one Creator. For instance, someone could believe that God permits people to do evil without causing that person to do evil. And just as God gave Jesus the power to breathe life into a clay bird, so he grants that power to people to choose between evil and good without causing them to choose evil (from my understanding of Kuran 2:26-27). For me, predestining something equals causing it to come about. And it's not that God doesn't predestine. I grant that how free will and predestination work together is beyond my understanding, but from the other post, Shaykh Abu Adam seems to be negating free will, as he says,
The choices that you make in your daily life are called choices, even if they are not created by you."
Let me say that Shaykh Abu Adam makes some good points, and he's considerate in responding at length to people's concerns on his site.
Perhaps the concept of kasb would be helpful here in understanding what he was saying (Is that the concept underlying what he has been saying on this topic?), but it would be helpful to read something more than the link you provided (any other online sources available?). As it stated,
the kasb doctrine was regarded by many Muslim theologians as being indistinguishable from pure predetermination. Despite the efforts of al-Ashʿarī and his followers (the Ashʿarīyah) to clarify kasb, it remained one of the most vague theories in Islāmic theology, as the proverb aḍaqq min kasb al-Ashʿarī (“more subtle than the kasb of al-Ashʿarī”) indicates.
My statement "One reason is that they assume they understand how God's predestination works in all its particulars" was too strong. I doubt that any scholar worth their salt would make such a statement. Rather, for me, their statements lead to that conclusion. (Perhaps in a way similar to the statement of Abu Hanifah leads to error for me.) What I want to say is that when a scholar rules out free will in effect if not in words on the basis of predestination, then they are saying they understand both concepts well enough to make that proclamation. But as you mentioned, this debate has been going on for millenia, and it is not likely that we have come that much closer to an understanding of the interactions between these two concepts. As you also mentioned, "theology (kalam) isn't going to get one closer to Almighty God or lead to surety of faith." So, it's time to stop writing for now.
Post a Comment
<< Home